Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[KI4MVP]

business owners don't have the right to discriminate. It's specifically illegal.

Many businesses used to openly discriminate based on race. There in fact actually used to be laws that required blatant discrimination. A lot of people from all races fought to end this injustice, many from all races risking their lives, some even losing theirs. Decades later there is still discrimination in this country, but things have gotten much, much better.

This Indiana law is a step backwards and is rightly being challenged by people everywhere. The most effective challenge is economic, which is why what the NCAA, NFL, and others, are doing is so effective in drawing a quick response.

It's illegal to discriminate for someone because of their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, or their religion.

It's outrageous that some religious people would try to flip things around and claim they are being discriminated against by not being allowed to discriminate against others. There is a huge difference between being a consumer or employee and being a business. People can refuse to buy from business or work for a business for any intolerant reason they want. The reverse isn't true.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Wow, New Jersey governor Cuomo requests a ban for "non-essential state travel" to Indiana.

This is going to be a state economy ass-whoppin'. The good news is that neighboring states like Ohio stand to gain from all these entities boycotting Indiana.

 

[Sebastian]

That this is a partisan issue is utterly repugnant. That anyone can find reasons to justify a law meticulously crafted to excuse discrimination in the name of religion, out of sheer malice toward a minority group, simply for political gain saddens me greatly.

And here is a tip: If anyone thinks that discrimination needs to be part of their religious beliefs then they are doing it completely wrong.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Personally, I've never understood why gay marriage is a religious issue at all. Marriage, to me, is a contract between two people and the government. Marriage existed before any modern religion. It should be independent from religion. It's fine if you want to get married in a church, but you need to recognize that the marriage is only legal if you register it with the government. And if two dudes or two chicks want to get married? Well, as long as they're consenting adults, I really don't see why the government should care. It's basically just a tax break. If churches want to prohibit the gays from marrying in their church, whatever...they're private organizations and that's their right (although the pope has pretty much said he's down with queers so yeah).

Regardless, if I owned a cake store, I'd totally be trying to obtain all the gay marriage cakes to make more money. That's just common sense.

 

[Cratylus]

I agree with Jack in that if I were a business owner I would be doing everything I could to obtain as much new business as I could.

But to go along with that, I recognize that some people place a different set of controlling ethics on their own actions than I do (namely, strict religious ethics). And some of those people (rightly or wrongly) hold deep convictions that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God and for them to support or assist same sex marriage in any way would be a violation of their conscience and their religious beliefs. I may disagree with those convictions (as do a vast majority of people), but that's not the point.

The point is, these particular kinds of people are being told that they MUST violate their beliefs and their religious convictions by REQUIRING them to engage in particular business transactions.

Suppose we're talking about a florist and a photographer who hold these beliefs. Should these two people be COERCED BY THREAT OF GOVERNMENT FINE OR IMPRISONMENT to provide flowers and photographic services at the wedding of two gay men?

If you answered "yes", then you have essentially said the government can establish laws that respect some people's religious beliefs but which disrespect other people's religious beliefs - a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The easy and correct way of handling situations like this is to let the free market work its magic. If certain religious folks want to refrain from selling their goods and services to particular people because doing so would violate their conscience and religious principles, that should be their right (as I pointed out in a previous post the inconsistency based on what side of the commercial transaction you happen to be on).

These people risk huge financial repercussions from less new business, loss of current customers, boycotts, etc. But if their principles are that important to them, so be it. It's their business/company, they should decide and face the consequences of their choices. They should not be forced to engage in a transaction that violates their own conscience, regardless of how effed up I may think it is.

All this talk about "consenting adults"... and yet there are people honestly espousing the idea that a person can and ought to be COMPELLED to engage in a business transaction that violates his own conscience and set of religious principles. That no longer fits the definition of "consent"; that becomes "coercion".

Is this what this country has become? That the inalienable rights of the individual must bend BY FORCE to the will of the majority?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What a transparent and asinine attempt at requiring an unreasonably narrow source of evidence.

Really? What else determines what state law is other than 1) an applicable statute, and/or 2) a court decision by a controlling court in that jurisdiction?

 

[Cratylus]

Really? What else determines what state law is other than 1) an applicable statute, and/or 2) a court decision by a controlling court in that jurisdiction?

The decree of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Gourimoko!

Now get on your knees and worship him, you heathen!

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The federal courts have routinely struck down, and continue to do so, state laws that bar same-sex marriage or attempt to otherwise permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court will, by the end of this year and by all likely accounts, make same-sex marriage the law of the land in all 50 states by declaring such discrimination against homosexuals as unconstitutional.

Today, November 6, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued the first ruling in favor of upholding laws that discriminate against same-sex couples from a federal appellate court in the past several years. In doing so, the Court upheld marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee and led to the continued discrimination of thousands of same-sex couples in these four states.

The plaintiffs and legal team in the case may now seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, or they could seek an en bancreview before the full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, October 6, just one month ago, the Supreme Court indicated that it saw nothing wrong with the freedom to marry for same-sex couples by effectively allowing anti-marriage laws to be struck down in eleven states.
Freedom to Marry Founder and President Evan Wolfson said today:

Today’s ruling is completely out of step with the Supreme Court's clear signal last month, out of step with the constitutional command as recognized by nearly every state and federal court in the past year, and out of step with the majority of the American people. This anomalous ruling won't stand the test of time or appeal. But with discrimination still burdening too many families, and now with this split in the circuits, Freedom to Marry calls on the Supreme Court to swiftly take these cases, affirm the freedom to marry, and bring national resolution once and for all. American couples and their families should no longer be forced to fight court by court, state by state, day by day for the freedom and dignity that our Constitution promises.

6th Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented from the ruling. She wrote:

These plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status -- de jure status, if you will -- with their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their children's schools. They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of us take for granted - the right to marry.

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court.

The 6th Circuit is the first federal appellate court this year to rule against the freedom to marry. Previous victories emerged this summer and fall in the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, and 10th Circuit. Those rulings added to nearly 40 additional wins in state and federal court.

In just the past month, same-sex couples have effectively won the freedom to marry in 16 different states: On Monday, October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in five marriage cases, clearing the way for the freedom to marry not only in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin - but also paving the path toward marriage in Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming, the other states in the 10th and 4th Circuits. Just one day later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the freedom to marry in a case from Idaho and a case from Nevada, setting the stage for marriage in those two states, as well as Alaska, Arizona and Montana. So far, just four of these states - Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, and South Carolina - have not yet implemented the appellate orders.

With these victories, just 15 states will soon remain without the freedom to marry - and today's out-of-step ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ensures that in four of these states, same-sex couples will for now continue to be denied the freedom to marry and real American families will continue to be hurt. As the prospective appeal in this ruling works its way to the 6th Circuit and, likely, the U.S. Supreme Court, it is more important than ever for the nation's highest court to recognize that it is time to take up a case and rule for the freedom to marry nationwide. It is simply untenable for 15 states to deny same-sex couples the same fundamental freedoms that are available or soon will be available in 35 other states.

It is simply time for the freedom to marry nationwide.
--end quote--

What do state law gay marriage bans struck down on constitutional grounds have to do with whether or not Title VII bars discrimination in the private sector on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[Phills14]

I guess I don't understand this fully. Using the florist example... A gay couple goes into a particular intolerant florist and ask the florist to supply flowers for their same sex wedding. The florist has the right already to take the job or decline the job. Why is a law needed to protect this intolerant florist in the first place?

 

[Soda]

I guess I don't understand this fully. Using the florist example... A gay couple goes into a particular intolerant florist and ask the florist to supply flowers for their same sex wedding. The florist has the right already to take the job or decline the job. Why is a law needed to protect this intolerant florist in the first place?

I think part of it is that homosexual supporters are pretty intolerant themselves. When it comes to acceptance, anyways. I don't support intolerance of homosexuals, but I do understand that there are some people with strong religious beliefs about homosexuality. It's their right, I suppose. I don't understand it, but it's not my belief.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The case was just decided in state court a year ago... It's already been stated in the news, repeatedly, that the Sixth District would side with the Ohio State Supreme Court, as they are the most conservative court in the Union when it comes to LGBT rights....

Okay, I take it back. You really are just confused.

gouri, what you've just typed there makes zero sense. You've confused the role of state and federal courts, and even misidentified the relevant courts in the first place. It's....gibberish.

First, what the hell is the "Sixth District??"

Second, the Ohio appellate court case I cited could not even be appealed to a federal court. It could only be appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which last year declined to take the case on appeal. It would have been theoretically possible for that decision to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (it wasn't), but that process skips federal district and circuit courts anyway.

Third, no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would have been made in that Burns case anyway because that case did not involve a question of federal constitutional or statutory law. It was purely a matter of interpreting whether or not a state statue barred private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is not a ruling that implicates any federal constitutional right.

Fourth, the Sixth Circuit court case cited by the Burns court was not from 2014, but from 2009. And it has not been reversed by either the Sixth Circuit itself, nor the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fifth, that case had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It had to do with the completely separate issue of whether Title VII bars private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is not a constitutional issue such as gay marriage.

Are you honestly going to sit here and say Burns v. The OSU College of Veterinary Medicine represents "the reality of the matter?"

In Ohio? Absolutely. The fact that private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal in Ohio is reality. I gave you a 2014 decision by an Ohio appellate court that cited decisions by other Ohio Appellate courts, that the Ohio Supreme Court declined to overrule, and which was consistent with how 4112 has always been interpreted after Hampel. If you're going to claim that is not current law in Ohio, then you need to cite an authority holding that.

Or instead, is an aberration from the norm?

No, it's not an aberration from the "norm". Every single other appellate court in Ohio has come to the exact same conclusion.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I guess I don't understand this fully. Using the florist example... A gay couple goes into a particular intolerant florist and ask the florist to supply flowers for their same sex wedding. The florist has the right already to take the job or decline the job. Why is a law needed to protect this intolerant florist in the first place?

In those states (a minority) that have a law barring private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation would be illegal, just as would be refusing service on the basis of religion, national origin, sex, or race.

 

[Sumac13]

The florist has the right already to take the job or decline the job. Why is a law needed to protect this intolerant florist in the first place?

Law is needed so that the state can "sanction" and put a stamp of approval on their bigotry. While before one could say, "Well, it isn't illegal." Now they can say, "Hey, it's legal, the state says I can." Yeah, same thing, but now one carries with it the feeling it is just.

For those who say it isn't big deal, I wonder if you or someone you loved were in the minority and were the target of such a law if it would no longer wouldn't seem a big deal. It isn't like gays are not already targets of anti-marriage laws.

You can argue businesses already have the right to refuse business based on 'religious' reasons, but the law isn't about giving them the right, it is about making an official statement that gayness is wrong.

So, yeah, it is a big deal.

 

[Cavatt]

One of the problems is that it means you could deny housing because you don't want hay people on your neighborhood, which is more of an issue than not being able to buy flowers.

I guess I don't understand this fully. Using the florist example... A gay couple goes into a particular intolerant florist and ask the florist to supply flowers for their same sex wedding. The florist has the right already to take the job or decline the job. Why is a law needed to protect this intolerant florist in the first place?

This is why q-tips argument on legal grounds is so dumb. If it's OK to discriminate already as he says, then what is the point of the law? Some backwards Hoosiers are upset because their gay marriage ban for overturned, so they made a retaliatory law to really show how not gay friendly they are.

I'm a Hoosier. It's as embarrassing as the fact that the clan is still a thing here. Dan Quayle wasn't bad enough I guess. We want to really prove how dumb we are definitively.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is why q-tips argument on legal grounds is so dumb. If it's OK to discriminate already as he says....

Are you claiming I'm wrong about that? If so, then please point me to the law in Ohio (I'm picking that as the easiest example but it applies to other states as well) that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And since you're from Indiana, please point me to the Indiana law that bars private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

then what is the point of the law? Some backwards Hoosiers are upset because their gay marriage ban for overturned, so they made a retaliatory law to really show how not gay friendly they are.

Ask Connecticut or any of the 18 other states that have similar laws.